Journal of World Philosophies Articles/28 Is Western Marxism Western? The Cases of Gramsci and Tosaka* ______________________________________ TAKAHIRO CHINO Waseda University, Japan ([email protected]) This paper aims to show that two eminent Marxists in the 1930s, the Italian Antonio Gramsci and the Japanese Tosaka Jun, shared three important characteristics of so-called Western Marxism: the methodological development of Marxism, the focus on the superstructure, and the pessimism about the impossibility of immediate revolution. Showing that Gramsci and Tosaka shared these characteristics enables us to revisit the framework of “Western Marxism,” which confusingly consists of both theoretical characteristics and geographical criteria. Looking at Gramsci and Tosaka on the same plane allows us to revisit Marxist thought different from the orthodox Marxism in Soviet Russia, and not strictly as a Western, but as a part of potentially global movement of thought. Keywords: Marxist Philosophy; Western Marxism; Antonio Gramsci; Tosaka Jun; Global Intellectual History 1 Introduction This article shows that two eminent Marxists in the 1930s, the Italian Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), and the Japanese Tosaka Jun (1900–1945)1, have provided considerably similar theories, which we acknowledge as those of Western Marxism in terms of its three key features: the methodological development of Marxism, the focus on the superstructure, and political pessimism about the possibility of future revolution. The case of Tosaka exemplifies that these key features of Western Marxism can also be found in geographically non-Western Marxists of the same era, irrespective of mutual contact, enabling us to revisit the commonly accepted framework of Western Marxism, which—confusingly—entails both theoretical characteristics and geographical criteria. The geographical element comes to the forefront in determining what does not count as Western Marxism, drawing boundaries behind those theoretical characteristics that were shared beyond these boundaries2. If we try to do justice to the theoretical distinctiveness of Western Marxism, instead of endorsing its geographical criteria, Tosaka’s case may suggest that, during the early twentieth century, the theoretical characteristics shown in this paper simultaneously develop in Japan, at least. Both Italy and Japan during this period experienced the rapid introduction of a capitalist economy, which created the division of cities and rural areas that appeared as the Southern Question, the division between the poor South and the rich North, in Italy and as the problem of Northern peasants, who were also in severe poverty, in Japan. Italy and Japan, although geographically understood as a part of West and East respectively, also experienced the rise of fascism as a consequence of widespread contradictions caused by rapid industrialization and militarization and the fall of parliamentary liberal democracy. In this sense, looking at Gramsci and Tosaka on the same plane allows us to revisit Marxist thought different from the orthodox Marxism in Soviet Russia, and not strictly as a Western, but as a part of potentially global movement of thought. _______________ Journal of World Philosophies 2 (Summer 2017): 28–41 Copyright © 2017 Takahiro Chino. e-ISSN: 2474-1795 • http://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/jwp• doi: 10.2979/jourworlphil.2.1.03 Journal of World Philosophies Articles/29 Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks have enjoyed worldwide popularity, inspiring the social sciences and humanities with, among others, the ideas of hegemony, passive revolution, and subaltern groups. The ideas that he deployed to analyze Italian politics from the Risorgimento up until his time were found useful in understanding the contemporary world by postwar scholars. By contrast, Tosaka has remained underexplored in and outside of Japan,3 perhaps because of the triumph of liberalism in the postwar Japanese intellectual and political climate as embodied by Maruyama Masao (1914–1996). 4 Recently, however, commentators outside of Japan have revisited Tosaka as a radical social critic whose analysis and theory were groundbreaking in the tradition of Marxist philosophy.5 In my view, Harry Harootunian initiated this reappraisal, stating that Overcome by Modernity—Harootunian’s masterpiece on interwar Japanese thought—is in a way “an attempt to retrieve Tosaka’s powerful critique of fascism and how its ideological appeal to culture and community was sanctioned by a liberal endowment”6. Likewise, the editors of Tosaka’s English anthology refer to his works as a “powerful corrective” to the category of Western Marxism7. Harootunian and other commentators have often referred to the similarity between Tosaka and Gramsci concerning their shared focus on the cultural sphere in modern societies8 . Although these references have not provided deeper discussions on Tosaka and Gramsci’s affinity, this seems to have greater implications than they might have thought, allowing us to revisit our common understanding of the uniqueness of so-called Western Marxism. Western Marxism as a theoretical category is ambiguous by definition. It may include thinkers of various inclinations from the first decades of the twentieth century to the present9. Perry Anderson famously argues that Western Marxism emerged to tackle the glaring division between socialist theory and the labor movement. As a reflection of the failure of orthodox Marxism, first of all, Western Marxism revolves around philosophical questions such as methodology and epistemology. Second, in contrast to orthodox Marxism, which primarily examines the economic base as a determinant of human society, Western Marxism is strongly concerned with the superstructure, where the above philosophical questions arise, as a relatively autonomous realm from the economy. And thirdly, all these developments of Western Marxism represent its consistent pessimism, in contrast to earlier Marxists such as Karl Marx (1818–1883), Antonio Labriola (1843–1904), and Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924), with a series of serious questions on issues such as the stronger structure of capitalism, the bureaucratization of socialism and perhaps the ambivalence of modernity at large (Anderson 1976: 92–4). After briefly introducing Tosaka Jun, who might not be as famous as Gramsci, the rest of this short article tries to show that the above three features can be found not only in Gramsci, but also in Tosaka, in order to demonstrate that Western Marxism, if we regard it as a series of theoretical inclinations, is not comprised exclusively of thinkers geographically residing in the West. 2 Two Contexts of Tosaka Jun Before comparing Gramsci and Tosaka, let us start by briefly introducing Tosaka Jun. It is worth placing him in the contexts of prewar Marxist philosophy in Japan and of the Kyoto School10. After being disbanded in 1924, the Japanese Communist Party (hereafter JCP) was re-established in 1926, with two opposing factions: the vanguardism of Fukumoto Kazuo (1894–1983) and the populism of Yamakawa Hitoshi (1880–1958). These were based on their different recognitions of the current Japanese situation stemming from the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the culmination of a series of events that groups of lower class Samurais, with different aims and interests, triggered the subversion of the weakened Tokugawa Shogunate, restored the imperial rule, spurred the subsequent westernization and industrialization of Japan, and thereby connected Japan to worldwide capitalism. Fukumoto, having studied under Georg Lukács and Karl Korsch, advocated the two-stage theory of revolution, according to which a future bourgeois revolution would be necessary before the proletarian. By contrast, Yamakawa recognized the _______________ Journal of World Philosophies 2 (Summer 2017): 28–41 Copyright © 2017 Takahiro Chino. e-ISSN: 2474-1795 • http://scholarworks.iu.edu/iupjournals/index.php/jwp• doi: 10.2979/jourworlphil.2.1.03 Journal of World Philosophies Articles/30 Meiji Restoration as a bourgeois revolution, suggesting the coming revolution would be the proletarian. However, the Comintern’s rejection of both factions in 1927 cost Fukumoto his previously enormous influence, and Yamakawa, who did not join the re-established JCP from the outset, organized the Rōnō-ha (Workers and Peasants Faction) outside the party. In 1930, some JCP theorists, later labeled as the Kōza-ha (Lecture Faction), edited a series of books entitled Lectures on the History of Development of Japanese Capitalism. Partly inheriting Fukumoto’s view, they insisted that the coming revolution would be bourgeois, with the abolition of monarchy and the large landowning system. As Marxism at large was severely suppressed by the police, the debate did not last long. Yet these factions nevertheless certainly informed the two mainstreams of prewar Japanese Marxism and echoed even into the postwar period. As I will discuss shortly, Tosaka strangely remained silent about this influential debate, because he focused on Marxism not purely as an economic theory, but as a cultural theory in a broad sense. Another context of Tosaka’s thought is the so-called “Kyoto School,” among the philosophers studied at Kyoto University around the renowned philosopher Kitarō Nishida (1870–1945), one of whose aims was to overcome the subject-object distinction, made by Descartes and inherited by Kant and Neo-Kantians, essential to modern Western philosophical tradition, in light of the Eastern philosophical and religious tradition.